I’m in Canada, I currently am lucky enough to have a job that includes housing. If I didn’t, 100% of my paycheck would go to rent and I’d still be short. I am not kidding. A full time job at $4 above minimum wage, still won’t get you enough to rent in my city.
I’m surprised we haven’t started building guillotines yet
But you don’t have to live in Vancouver.
‘But you don’t have to live in the place where the jobs are’
It was a joke about how it’s gotta be Vancouver.
33% gang over here
That’s all?
I wonder if there’s a significant difference if this is measured by household or by individual.
30% is insanely low. If I only paid 30% for housing I could retire in my 40s.
30% is widely considered to be the most you should pay for a living space in order to live a sustainable lifestyle and retire comfortably. It even says in the article that they consider anyone that has to pay more than that to be “cost burdened”.
It usually breaks down somewhere around 30% on housing, 20% on necessary bills, 30% on wants / unnecessary bills, and 20% on retirement investments / savings.
The fact that nearly half of renters cannot do that is the problem that they are trying to highlight, but it doesn’t offer much of a solution. These people will not be able to retire without public assistance (if they can at all), and will likely run into serious struggles long before then.
It’s a crude rule of thumb that was questionably useful when it was first promulgated, and now is entirely adrift from reality.
It’s extremely difficult to pull off today, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an appropriate figure. The “wants” and “investment” categories have effectively been wiped out for a large number of people, which isn’t a healthy and sustainable way to live long term.
This is what the entire “living wage” argument is based on. Regular people aren’t making enough money to have a healthy budget. Well, some are just over inflating wants, but that’s not the people I’m talking about.
The notion that housing should take up a particular portion of your income is fundamentally flawed. It relies on a fixed relationship between prices of different classes of goods, when that relationship varies over place and time.
Which situation is better: making 50k take-home and paying 15k in housing costs (30%), or making 100k and paying 50k (50%)?
There are real problems in the housing market and overall affordability, but this statistic is like trying to measure national health by the percentage of people drinking 8 glasses a day of water.
50k and paying 15k, because that person is living within their means. They probably share a shitty apartment with roommates and have a crappy car, but they can sustain their lifestyle. Eventually they will retire with investments covering the exact same income that they have now.
100k paying 50k is a hot shot, a flash in the pan. They have a higher quality of life right now, but they will likely crash and burn. They cannot live and invest enough money to sustain their lifestyle, and they won’t know what to do when they suddenly have to live on half of what they used to make.
Making more money does not mean you have better finances, it usually just means you own more expensive stuff right now.
Edit: the one exception is the 100k paying 50k and then living like the 50k paying 15k for literally everything else. They are not the norm, but those people will probably be ok. They’ll have to move when they retire though, or have like no paid fun ever.
Yeah, these articles are clearly made for and about upper middle class people who are now feeling the pinch. Us actual poor people were at 30% when? Maybe 40 years ago? Most families now need 3-4 jobs just to get by
